The constitution doesn't say "the president is above the law", nor does Bush's argument about his powers rest on the idea that the president is above the law.
Actually, it seems to me that his "argument"--or rather, his assertions--about signing statements imply that he is indeed above the law. At least, he is above the legislators who make the law--after all, his argument is that the president can, while he signs the bill into law, say what he thinks the law means, and he claims that as long as he lives up (or down?) to that declared standard/interpretation, he is "within" the law. So technically, he isn't "above" the law, but only because he declares that his interpretation is determinative of the law.
However, this is opposed to the constitution. The legislative branch makes the laws, not the executive. The judicial branch interprets the law, not the executive. The executive branch executes the law--it does what the Congress says it should do. At least in theory it does. Obviously, the executive branch must do some interpreting in order to execute it. However, that interpretation is open to criticism from the judiciary, whose interpretation is the final say. Not the executive.
But of course this administration interprets the separation of powers to mean that each branch is independent of the others and no branch can tell the others what to do--especially, no branch can tell the executive what to do. See Dick Cheney's lawyers argument in Judicial Watch v. Cheney et al back in the energy commission battles. I would have given their argument an "A" for Chutzpah, and an "F" for constitutional interpretation if I had received it as a class paper. |
